IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v176y2018icp230-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje
  • Renn, Ortwin

Abstract

This paper discusses the basic principles that a government should adopt when it comes to risk. There seems to be broad agreement about general principles, such as openness and transparency, involvement, proportionality and consistency, and making decisions based on evidence, but when it comes to a more detailed level, suitable principles are missing or are inconsistent. For example, what does it mean to base decisions on evidence or to act with proportionality when regulating or managing risk? The present paper aims at stimulating a discussion on this topic by formulating eight specific principles that governments should apply for the effective treatment of risk in society. The authors consider these eight principles to reflect current scientific knowledge produced by the risk analysis field, but like all principles of this type they are grounded in normative requirements of “good†governance. Several examples are used to illustrate the discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:176:y:2018:i:c:p:230-241
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832017305185
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones-Lee, M. & Aven, T., 2009. "The role of social cost–benefit analysis in societal decision-making under large uncertainties with application to robbery at a cash depot," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1954-1961.
    2. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2017. "How some types of risk assessments can support resilience analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 536-543.
    4. Igor Linkov & Sabrina Larkin & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Concepts and approaches to resilience in a variety of governance and regulatory domains," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 183-184, June.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2015. "Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 83-91.
    6. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, September.
    7. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 273-292, March.
    8. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    9. Ragnar Lofstedt & Anne Schlag, 2017. "Risk-risk tradeoffs: what should we do in Europe?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 963-983, August.
    10. Teng, Kuei-Yung & Thekdi, Shital A. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Identification and evaluation of priorities in the business process of a risk or safety organization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-86.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    12. Richard J. Arnould & Henry Grabowski, 1981. "Auto Safety Regulation: An Analysis of Market Failure," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(1), pages 27-48, Spring.
    13. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Paul Lindhout & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "Involving Moral and Ethical Principles in Safety Management Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Lima, Eliana Sangreman & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas, 2019. "Improving Asset Management under a regulatory view," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    7. Björn Lundgren & H. Orri Stefánsson, 2020. "Against the De Minimis Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 908-914, May.
    8. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    9. Aib Abdelatif & Djamel Nettour & Rachid Chaib & Ion Verzea & Salim Bensehamdi, 2023. "Improvement of enterprise risk visualization: risk mapping," Technology audit and production reserves, PC TECHNOLOGY CENTER, vol. 6(2(74)), pages 28-36, December.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    11. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Devyani Pande & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "The Governance Conundrum of Powered Micromobility Devices: An In-Depth Case Study from Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, May.
    13. Terje Aven, 2019. "The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1196-1203, June.
    14. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    2. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    3. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    5. Marcin Nowak & Rafał Mierzwiak & Marcin Butlewski, 2020. "Occupational risk assessment with grey system theory," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 717-732, June.
    6. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    7. Juliana Aurora de Oliveira Lopes & Léo Heller, 2020. "Explanatory Matrices on the Causes of a Tailing Dam Collapse in Brazil: The (Dis)Articulation of Epistemes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2524-2538, December.
    8. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    9. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    11. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Leif Inge K. Sørskår & Eirik B. Abrahamsen, 2017. "On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 5(1), pages 97-116, November.
    13. Rolf Lidskog & Ingemar Elander & Adam Standring, 2020. "COVID-19, the Climate, and Transformative Change: Comparing the Social Anatomies of Crises and Their Regulatory Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Terje Aven & Azadeh Seif, 2022. "On the foundation and use of the de minimis principle in a risk analysis context," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(1), pages 90-97, February.
    15. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Moharamzadeh, Alireza & Abrahamsen, Håkon Bjorheim & Asche, Frank & Heide, Bjørnar & Milazzo, Maria Francesca, 2018. "Are too many safety measures crowding each other out?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 108-113.
    16. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    17. Arturo Vallejos-Romero & Felipe Sáez Ardura & Minerva Cordoves-Sánchez & César Cisternas & Markku Lehtonen & Luz Karime Sánchez Galvis & Àlex Boso, 2024. "Configuring Socio-Environmental Risks in Chile: Institutional Narratives and Complexities in a Risk Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    19. Borgonovo, E. & Cappelli, V. & Maccheroni, F. & Marinacci, M., 2018. "Risk analysis and decision theory: A bridge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 280-293.
    20. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:176:y:2018:i:c:p:230-241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.